U.S. patent number 8,190,987 [Application Number 11/924,051] was granted by the patent office on 2012-05-29 for private views of data and local calculations during real time collaboration.
This patent grant is currently assigned to Microsoft Corporation. Invention is credited to Johnny S. Campbell, Joseph M. Chirilov, Robert G. Hawking, Michael H. Smith, Rishabh Tandon.
United States Patent |
8,190,987 |
Campbell , et al. |
May 29, 2012 |
Private views of data and local calculations during real time
collaboration
Abstract
Techniques for performing a process during a real time
collaboration by multiple users or clients on a spreadsheet file
are disclosed herein which may permit calculations to be performed
locally by at least one of the clients. By doing so, increases in
performance are realized since only data updates need to be
provided to the host machine. As such, a determination is
preferably made whether calculations performed locally can result
in different data. If conflicting data is a possibility, then the
calculations for the spreadsheet file will usually be performed
remotely by a host machine. If not, then each client capable of
doing so will perform the calculations locally and then provide
only the updated data to the host machine. The determination of
whether to perform the calculations locally or not may also be made
dynamically, such as when one or more new formulas are added to the
spreadsheet file.
Inventors: |
Campbell; Johnny S. (Renton,
WA), Chirilov; Joseph M. (Redmond, WA), Smith; Michael
H. (Seattle, WA), Hawking; Robert G. (Seattle, WA),
Tandon; Rishabh (Sammamish, WA) |
Assignee: |
Microsoft Corporation (Redmond,
WA)
|
Family
ID: |
40580321 |
Appl.
No.: |
11/924,051 |
Filed: |
October 25, 2007 |
Prior Publication Data
|
|
|
|
Document
Identifier |
Publication Date |
|
US 20090112990 A1 |
Apr 30, 2009 |
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
715/212; 715/219;
715/751 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q
10/10 (20130101); G06F 16/954 (20190101); G06F
16/178 (20190101); G06F 40/197 (20200101); G06F
40/18 (20200101); G06Q 10/101 (20130101) |
Current International
Class: |
G06F
17/00 (20060101); G06F 3/00 (20060101) |
Field of
Search: |
;715/212,751,753,762
;707/608 |
References Cited
[Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
Foreign Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-2000-00765 08 |
|
Dec 2000 |
|
KR |
|
10-2004-00774 97 |
|
Sep 2004 |
|
KR |
|
Other References
"Component-Based Specification of Collaborative Objects",
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS), Feb.
2007, 168, 175-190, Abstract Only. cited by other .
Shiozawa, H. et al., "Perspective Layered Visualization of
Collaborative Workspaces", ACM, 1999, 71-80. cited by other .
International Search Report, PCT/US2008/079668, Dated: May 28,
2009, pp. 1-2. cited by other.
|
Primary Examiner: Nguyen; Chau
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Woodcock Washburn LLP
Claims
What is claimed:
1. A computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon
computer-executable instructions for performing a process,
comprising: opening a spreadsheet file at a first client, the
spreadsheet file also being open at a second client such that both
the first client and the second client collaborate on the
spreadsheet file; determining whether calculations in the
spreadsheet file can return different data if performed locally by
comparing all formulas in the spreadsheet file against a
predetermined list of formulas known to generate the different
data; if so, then providing a choice to the first client whether to
perform the calculations in the spreadsheet file locally; if not,
then instructing the first client to perform the calculations
locally; performing locally at the first client at least one of the
calculations in the spreadsheet file; and displaying results of the
at least one performed calculation at the first client.
2. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein a
response to the choice is predetermined by an administrator
policy.
3. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, the process
performed by the computer-executable instructions further
comprising: determining dynamically whether a calculation in the
spreadsheet file for a formula added during the collaboration can
return different data if performed locally.
4. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, the process
performed by the computer-executable instructions further
comprising: receiving updates to data in the spreadsheet file; and
performing new calculations locally in the spreadsheet file for
formulas utilizing the updated data.
5. A computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon
computer-executable instructions for performing a process,
comprising: opening a spreadsheet file at a first client, the
spreadsheet file also being open at a second client such that both
the first client and the second client collaborate on the
spreadsheet file; determining whether calculations in the
spreadsheet file can return different data if performed locally by
comparing all formulas in the spreadsheet file against a
predetermined list of formulas known to generate the different
data; if not, then instructing the first client to perform the
calculations locally; if so, then determining whether the
calculations in the spreadsheet file should be performed locally at
the first client or a remote device other than the first client; if
the calculations should be performed locally, then performing
locally at the first client the calculations; and if the
calculations should be performed remotely, then sending data for
performing the calculations to the remote device.
6. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 5, the process
performed by the computer-executable instructions further
comprising: providing a choice to the first client whether to
perform the calculations in the spreadsheet file locally.
7. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 5, the process
performed by the computer-executable instructions further
comprising: determining dynamically whether calculations in the
spreadsheet file for a formula added during the collaboration can
return different data if performed locally.
8. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 5, the process
performed by the computer-executable instructions further
comprising: receiving updates to data in the spreadsheet file; and
performing new calculations locally in the spreadsheet file for
formulas utilizing the updated data.
Description
BACKGROUND
A new feature related to some spreadsheet applications is the
ability for multiple users to collaborate on a single spreadsheet
file simultaneously in real time. This is a mode of editing where
each user can instantaneously (or almost instantaneously) see
changes made by other users who are editing the file. For example,
when a first user makes a change to a spreadsheet cell, all other
users may have their view of the spreadsheet updated milliseconds
later so that all changes seem to appear as they happen. There are
often other features that go along with this type of collaboration
such as real time chat and user presence information. If
implemented well, this feature truly creates the appearance that
users are working together on the same spreadsheet, sharing and
editing data at the same time.
One problem associated with real time collaboration is that, in
most scenarios, each collaborating user wants to see the same data
in the spreadsheet file. This is a clear user expectation, and, if
users don't see the same data after they make changes, they will
feel like the data is incorrect, or that their changes weren't
received properly. The users may also become uncertain as to who
has the `right` data. Since this user expectation is core to the
user experience, calculations in conventional real time
collaboration environments are performed at a central location such
as a server and then broadcast to each client separately. This is
because different calculations made at different times can cause
the data to be different in many cases. Thus, every time a user
makes a change, the change is broadcast, and the spreadsheet file
is recalculated and rebroadcast so that every client version of the
spreadsheet file can be updated. Doing this takes time, and is
particularly slow for spreadsheets that have more complex
calculations.
Another problem associated with real time collaboration is that
collaborating users will often want to see their own unique view of
the data. For example, when users are entering data into a single
large table, each user may have entries that only the individual
user cares about seeing. Each individual user may want to filter
the table in a unique way so that only the entries that the
individual user is responsible for are shown. The problem is that
each user typically has a different filter to be applied to the
same table, but, since each user is editing the same table at the
same time, they all see each other's changes. This traditionally
has made manipulating or analyzing data in a real time
collaborative environment very difficult if not impossible.
SUMMARY
Techniques for performing a process during a real time
collaboration by multiple users or clients on a spreadsheet file
are disclosed herein which may permit calculations to be performed
locally by at least one of the clients. By doing so, increases in
performance are realized since only data updates need to be
provided to the host machine. As such, a determination is
preferably made whether calculations performed locally can result
in different data. If conflicting data is a possibility, then the
calculations for the spreadsheet file will usually be performed
remotely by a host machine. If not, then each client capable of
doing so will perform the calculations locally and then provide
only the updated data to the host machine. The determination of
whether to perform the calculations locally or not may also be made
dynamically, such as when one or more new formulas are added to the
spreadsheet file by one of the collaborating clients.
Techniques are also disclosed herein with respect to providing a
desired view of the spreadsheet file by the clients collaborating
thereon. Rather than displaying the typical shared view, which
includes all the details of the spreadsheet file, a private view
may be displayed for each client according to the data such client
chooses. This may be the result from the use of a sort, filter or
other tool, for example. Accordingly, only certain specified
operations may be synchronized between a client computer and a host
machine, but all data will be provided so that it can be further
sent to the other client computers. In order to allow the desired
or private views of a client computer to be available after the
collaboration, each such view may be persisted in the spreadsheet
file of the host machine.
This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a
simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed
Description. This summary is not intended to identify key features
or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it
intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the
claimed subject matter.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The illustrative embodiments will be better understood after
reading the following detailed description with reference to the
appended drawings, in which:
FIG. 1 is a block diagram an exemplary computing device.
FIG. 2 is a system diagram depicting a plurality of client
computers collaborating on a spreadsheet file, where one client
computer is performing calculations locally.
FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a process for performing calculations
in a spreadsheet file for a plurality of client computers
collaborating thereon.
FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of a process for providing views of a
spreadsheet file for client computers collaborating on a
spreadsheet file.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The inventive subject matter is described with specificity to meet
statutory requirements. However, the description itself is not
intended to limit the scope of this patent. Rather, it is
contemplated that the claimed subject matter might also be embodied
in other ways, to include different steps or combinations of steps
similar to the ones described in this document, in conjunction with
other present or future technologies
FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a suitable computing system
environment 100 in which the subject matter described above may be
implemented. The computing system environment 100 is only one
example of a suitable computing environment and is not intended to
suggest any limitation as to the scope of use or functionality of
the subject matter described above. Neither should the computing
environment 100 be interpreted as having any dependency or
requirement relating to any one or combination of components
illustrated in the exemplary operating environment 100.
With reference to FIG. 1, computing system environment 100 includes
a general purpose computing device in the form of a computer 110.
Components of computer 110 may include, but are not limited to, a
processing unit 120, a system memory 130, and a system bus 121 that
couples various system components including the system memory to
the processing unit 120. The system bus 121 may be any of several
types of bus structures including a memory bus or memory
controller, a peripheral bus, and a local bus using any of a
variety of bus architectures. By way of example, and not
limitation, such architectures include Industry Standard
Architecture (ISA) bus, Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) bus,
Enhanced ISA (EISA) bus, Video Electronics Standards Association
(VESA) local bus, and Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus
(also known as Mezzanine bus).
Computer 110 typically includes a variety of computer readable
media. Computer readable media can be any available media that can
be accessed by computer 110 and includes both volatile and
nonvolatile media, removable and non-removable media. By way of
example, and not limitation, computer readable media may comprise
computer storage media and communication media. Computer storage
media include both volatile and nonvolatile, removable and
non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for
storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data
structures, program modules or other data. Computer storage media
include, but are not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or
other memory technology, CDROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or
other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape,
magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any
other medium which can be used to store the desired information and
which can be accessed by computer 110. Communication media
typically embody computer readable instructions, data structures,
program modules or other data in a modulated data signal such as a
carrier wave or other transport mechanism and include any
information delivery media. The term "modulated data signal" means
a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed
in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of
example, and not limitation, communication media include wired
media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and
wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless
media. Combinations of any of the above should also be included
within the scope of computer readable media.
The system memory 130 includes computer storage media in the form
of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory such as read only memory
(ROM) 131 and random access memory (RAM) 132. A basic input/output
system 133 (BIOS), containing the basic routines that help to
transfer information between elements within computer 110, such as
during start-up, is typically stored in ROM 131. RAM 132 typically
contains data and/or program modules that are immediately
accessible to and/or presently being operated on by processing unit
120. By way of example, and not limitation, FIG. 1 illustrates
operating system 134, application programs 135, other program
modules 136, and program data 137.
The computer 110 may also include other removable/non-removable,
volatile/nonvolatile computer storage media. By way of example
only, FIG. 1 illustrates a hard disk drive 141 that reads from or
writes to non-removable, nonvolatile magnetic media, a magnetic
disk drive 151 that reads from or writes to a removable,
nonvolatile magnetic disk 152, and an optical disk drive 155 that
reads from or writes to a removable, nonvolatile optical disk 156,
such as a CD-RW, DVD-RW or other optical media. Other
removable/non-removable, volatile/nonvolatile computer storage
media that can be used in the exemplary operating environment
include, but are not limited to, magnetic tape cassettes, flash
memory cards, digital versatile disks, digital video tape, solid
state RAM, solid state ROM and the like. The hard disk drive 141 is
typically connected to the system bus 121 through a non-removable
memory interface such as interface 140, and magnetic disk drive 151
and optical disk drive 155 are typically connected to the system
bus 121 by a removable memory interface, such as interface 150.
The drives and their associated computer storage media discussed
above and illustrated in FIG. 1 provide storage of computer
readable instructions, data structures, program modules and other
data for the computer 110. In FIG. 1, for example, hard disk drive
141 is illustrated as storing operating system 144, application
programs 145, other program modules 146 and program data 147. Note
that these components can either be the same as or different from
operating system 134, application programs 135, other program
modules 136 and program data 137. Operating system 144, application
programs 145, other program modules 146 and program data 147 are
given different numbers here to illustrate that, at a minimum, they
are different copies. A user may enter commands and information
into the computer 110 through input devices such as a keyboard 162
and pointing device 161, such as a mouse, trackball or touch pad.
Other input devices (not shown) may include a microphone, joystick,
game pad, satellite dish, scanner, or the like. These and other
input devices are often connected to the processing unit 120
through a user input interface 160 that is coupled to the system
bus 121, but may be connected by other interface and bus
structures, such as a parallel port, game port or a universal
serial bus (USB). A graphics interface 182 may also be connected to
the system bus 121. One or more graphics processing units (GPUs)
184 may communicate with graphics interface 182. A monitor 191 or
other type of display device is also connected to the system bus
121 via an interface, such as a video interface 190, which may in
turn communicate with video memory 186. In addition to monitor 191,
computers may also include other peripheral output devices such as
speakers 197 and printer 196, which may be connected through an
output peripheral interface 195.
The computer 110 may operate in a networked or distributed
environment using logical connections to one or more remote
computers, such as a remote computer 180. The remote computer 180
may be a personal computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a
peer device or other common network node, and typically includes
many or all of the elements described above relative to the
computer 110, although only a memory storage device 181 has been
illustrated in FIG. 1. The logical connections depicted in FIG. 1
include a local area network (LAN) 171 and a wide area network
(WAN) 173, but may also include other networks/buses. Such
networking environments are commonplace in homes, offices,
enterprise-wide computer networks, intranets and the Internet.
When used in a LAN networking environment, the computer 110 is
connected to the LAN 171 through a network interface or adapter
170. When used in a WAN networking environment, the computer 110
typically includes a modem 172 or other means for establishing
communications over the WAN 173, such as the Internet. The modem
172, which may be internal or external, may be connected to the
system bus 121 via the user input interface 160, or other
appropriate mechanism. In a networked environment, program modules
depicted relative to the computer 110, or portions thereof, may be
stored in the remote memory storage device. By way of example, and
not limitation, FIG. 1 illustrates remote application programs 185
as residing on memory device 181. It will be appreciated that the
network connections shown are exemplary and other means of
establishing a communications link between the computers may be
used.
It will be appreciated from FIG. 2 that two or more computing
systems 200 and 220, such as like that described above, also known
as a first client and a second client, respectively, may desire to
collaborate in real time on a common file, such as a spreadsheet
file 210. This is a mode of editing where each user or client may
see changes made by any other users or clients who are editing the
file at that time. As shown, this is accomplished via a separate
host machine, such as a server 230, which contains the version of
the spreadsheet file that will be saved. Of course, any of the
client computers may be utilized as the host machine for the
collaboration so long as it has the capability and the client
computers are properly networked.
In the typical collaborative arrangement, the client computer
(e.g., computing system 200) will pass messages or data updates (as
depicted by arrow 240) via computer-executable instructions to the
host machine 230. Host machine 230 then processes the various
changes or incoming data received from all clients (depicted in box
250) and sends such updates (as depicted by arrows 260) via
computer-executable instructions to each client computer. In this
way, the state of spreadsheet file 210 for all client computers is
kept in synch during the collaboration. It will be understood that
changes made to the spreadsheet file 210 by any of the client
computers may be provided to the other client computers very
quickly so that all changes seem to appear as they happen.
Rather than rely upon host machine 230 to centrally perform all
calculations performed in spreadsheet file 210 and then
re-broadcast the results to the individual client computers, it is
preferred in at least some circumstances that the calculations be
performed locally (see box 270) by one or more client computers. In
the example of FIG. 2, only client computer 220 is depicted as
performing these local calculations, but it should be appreciated
that any number of other client computers (e.g., client computer
200) may also perform these local calculations. The local
calculations may be accomplished, for example, by what is known in
the art as a thick client version or by using other logic (e.g.,
logic contained in a local web page). After such local calculations
have been performed by the client computer 220, only updates to the
data (see box 280) are then sent (as depicted by arrow 290) to the
host machine 230 for synchronization. It will be appreciated that,
during any collaborative session, one or more client computers may
perform the calculations for spreadsheet file 210 locally and one
or more client computers may rely upon host machine 230 to perform
such calculations remotely. By performing calculations required by
spreadsheet file 210 locally, however, data updates may be
accomplished more quickly, particularly when complex calculations
are involved.
In order to better appreciate how local calculations of spreadsheet
file 220 are preferably employed during a collaboration session
including multiple users or clients, the process steps involved are
depicted in FIG. 3. As seen therein, a real time collaboration
begins when a spreadsheet file stored on a host machine is opened
by multiple clients or users (box 300). Thereafter, the host
machine determines whether the calculations to be performed for the
spreadsheet file can return different data if performed locally by
the clients (box 305). More specifically, the host machine
preferably compares all the formulas in the spreadsheet file
against a predetermined list of formulas known to generate
different results. Discrepancies between calculation results may be
caused by various reasons, including when or where the calculations
are made. Each spreadsheet implementation may make this
determination separately since the determination may depend upon
how the functions are evaluated.
If the calculations are determined by the host machine to always
return the same results, then a message is sent to each client
computer to perform the calculations locally (box 310) and the
client computers perform the calculations (box 315). It will be
understood that each client computer performing local calculations
will then display the results of the calculations in the
spreadsheet file at that client (box 320) and send corresponding
updates to the host machine (box 325) which includes only data.
Consequently, the host machine synchronizes the data updates from
the client computers and sends updates to all such client computers
(box 330).
Even if it is determined that the calculations could return
different data if performed locally by client computers, it is
still preferred that each user or client be provided a choice or
option whether to calculate formulas in the spreadsheet file
locally or not (box 335). There are, for example, situations when
local calculations returning different results is acceptable (e.g.,
when functions give a result that is dependent on which time zone
the client computer is located). In such cases, the calculations
are performed locally by the client computer (box 340), the
calculation results are displayed by the client computer (box 345),
and the corresponding data updates are provided to the host machine
(box 350).
Should any client be unable to perform the calculations locally or
if different results are not considered acceptable, then the data
updates are sent to the host machine (box 355) and calculations for
the spreadsheet file are preferably performed remotely by the host
machine (box 360). The updates are then sent from the host machine
to the client computers (box 330). It is also possible that the
choice of whether to calculate the formulas in the spreadsheet file
locally or not will be predetermined by administrator policy.
Whether calculation of the formulas within the spreadsheet file are
performed locally or not, it will be understood from a feedback
loop 332 that the data updates synchronized by the host machine and
sent to all clients (box 330) are preferably continuous during the
collaboration. In this way, the client computers are able to make
changes to and perform calculations for the spreadsheet file based
on current data.
In order to permit a dynamic determination whether to perform the
calculations in the spreadsheet file locally or not, it is
preferred that the process include a step to determine whether any
new formulas have been added to the spreadsheet file during the
collaboration (decision box 365). Clearly, if no formulas have been
added by a client computer, the updates from the host machine to
the client computers continue to be sent (box 330). When one or
more new formulas has been added during the collaboration, it will
be appreciated that a feedback loop 370 is created which causes the
new formula (s) to be analyzed and a new determination to be made
whether the calculations in the spreadsheet file can return
different data if performed locally (box 310).
Another aspect of the present invention involves the view of the
spreadsheet file displayed at each client computer during the
collaboration. Rather than being limited to a shared view of the
spreadsheet file, where the client computer displays the entirety
thereof, it is sometimes preferred by a client or user to have a
private view where only certain objects in the spreadsheet file are
shown. It will be appreciated that all the data in the spreadsheet
file is the same for each client computer and that changes made to
any data are still updated by the host machine and sent to each
client computer. Because each client computer is able to apply
sorts and filters which only apply to that client's view of the
data, each client is able to have their own tailored view of the
data in the spreadsheet file. This enables clients that need to
simultaneously edit or analyze large tables to have an experience
that is similar to that when performing single editing. Of course,
it is preferred that changes to views by one client computer are
not broadcast to all other clients.
As seen in FIG. 4, the collaboration is initiated when the
spreadsheet file is opened by multiple client computers (box 400).
It will be appreciated that a choice or option is provided (such
as, for example, by a user interface) which permits a client to
select either a private view or a shared view of the data objects
in the spreadsheet file (box 405). This option may be global for
the entire spreadsheet or it may be per spreadsheet object. If the
client desires to have a private view, then that view of the data
is generated by the client just as it would in a single user
editing case (box 410).
Each time a user or client performs an operation in the
collaboration, it determines whether to synchronize this operation
with the host machine for the spreadsheet file (box 415). Thus, it
is preferred that the client application include logic to know
which operations should be synchronized with the host machine and
which should not. For example, it may be determined that certain
operations (i.e., sorts, filters, PivotTable manipulations, etc.)
should not be synchronized. In any event, it is preferred that any
data added or changed by the client in the spreadsheet file always
be synchronized with the host machine (box 420).
It will be seen that the host machine then processes the data
updates and sends them to all client computers (box 425). Any
changes that are received by the client computer from the host
machine are applied as they normally would be in a collaboration.
Therefore, any change in data, even data that is shown in a private
view, is then picked up by every other client computer that is in
the collaboration. At the same time, the change in data will not be
shown in the user interface of a private view unless it is visible
in such view. Due to the continuous nature of the editing process
during a collaboration, a feedback loop 435 is preferably provided
so that the updated data from the host machine is then displayed in
the chosen view.
Of course, the other view alternative is a shared view that
displays the spreadsheet file in a comprehensive manner. Should a
private view not be chosen, a shared view is generated (box 430)
instead.
Once a user or client computer decides to exit from the
collaboration, it is preferred that the view chosen for such client
computer be persisted in the spreadsheet file stored in the host
computer (box 440). In this way, the client computers are able to
see such view from that spreadsheet file when it is opened at a
later date. Optionally, logic may be written for the views of each
client computer into the format of the spreadsheet file, which can
be represented as a table in the file format which has entries for
each user, object, and view of that object.
An exemplary situation could involve a first user and a second user
who are collaborating on a large table in a spreadsheet using, for
example, a thick client version of a spreadsheet application. The
table may contain, for example, sales data for each country. The
first user or client may apply a filter so that only sales in the
United States are displayed, whereas the second user may employ a
filter so that only sales in France are displayed. If the second
user makes a change to a row in the table involving a French sale,
that change is sent to the first user's computer since the data
changed. Nevertheless, the view for the first user does not reflect
this change on the screen because all French sales are currently
filtered out of that view. Other places in the first user's
spreadsheet are correctly updated, however, such as the total sales
chart in the first user's spreadsheet where the change made by the
second user is taken into account. In addition, the second user may
change the filter applied so that sales from both France and Spain
are viewed. This change may not be sent to the host machine and may
not be picked up by the first user because it only affects the
view.
Although the subject matter has been described in language specific
to the structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be
understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims
is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts
described above. Rather, the specific features or acts described
above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the
claims.
* * * * *